His reasoning being that Star Wars is better because it caters to a wider audience, has a larger budget and better CGI.
Those are reasons why Star Wars is more profitable. (You could also add, Star Wars has more kid appeal, which is a big boost to toy sales, where the real money is.) I doubt Disney would have paid $4 billion for the rights to Star Trek. But noneof that has any bearing on inherent quality.
Neither is superior to the other, since both can be done well or poorly. At the most basic level, Star Trek is about ideas and Star Wars is about emotion. People are more likely to seek out emotional experiences in their entertainment, so Star Wars is more profitable. But there's nothing bad about that.
Another distinction is that Star Wars' strengths are movie strenghts - visuals, action, emotion - and Star Trek's strengths are TV strengths - ideas, character, complex plotlines and themes, modern day parallels.
So when you turn Star Trek into a movie, it naturally must get more Star Warsy. But the reverse is also true - The Clone Wars has more detailed and convincing character psychology and political plotlines than I've ever seen in Star Wars before, and in fact, it's better than much of Star Trek (though still well below DS9's standard.)